The New Age of Fossil Fuels

There's a must-read article at Salon.com called, "Everything you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrong." It's amazing that it even appeared at Salon. An argument strongly in favor of fossil fuels that debunks various environmentalist predictions of doom, at Salon? As I read it I was anticipating the shrieks of outrage that were sure to greet it. Check out the comments for entertainment value. Liberals aren't fond of challenges to their cherished assumptions. Here's a couple excerpts from the article.

If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come. ... The abundance and geographic diversity of fossil fuels made possible by technology in time will reduce the dependence of the U.S. on particular foreign energy exporters, eliminating the national security argument for renewable energy. And if the worst-case scenarios for climate change were plausible, then the most effective way to avert catastrophic global warming would be the rapid expansion of nuclear power, not over-complicated schemes worthy of Rube Goldberg or Wile E. Coyote to carpet the world’s deserts and prairies with solar panels and wind farms that would provide only intermittent energy from weak and diffuse sources.

The whole article is definitely worth reading.

Krauthammer Wants more Gas Taxes Too

After just attacking the New York Times proposal to raise gas taxes through the roof, I was apalled to see Charles Krauthammer put forth a similiar proposal in the Weekly Standard.  Now granted, Krauthammer's idea is a lot less drastic, and he would offset it with a reduction in the payroll tax; but he still wants to raise gas taxes during a recession. He admits that

today's economic climate of financial instability and deepening recession, moreover, makes the piling on of new taxes--gasoline or otherwise--not just politically unpalatable but economically dubious in the extreme.

But he then goes on to argue that we should do it anyway, because

the only time you can possibly think of imposing a tax to achieve them is when oil prices are very low.

He makes a detailed case for the benefits of his gas tax,  and argues that it would be superior to our current attempts to regulate car manufacturers.

a gas tax would render these government-dictated regulations irrelevant and obsolete. If you want to shift to fuel-efficient cars, don't mandate, don't scold, don't appeal to the better angels of our nature. Find the price point, reach it with a tax, and let the market do the rest.

That's some real utopian dreaming there.  In what world is the government going to remove regulations on auto manufacturers just because we pass a new gas tax?  Does Krauthammer, who is usually pretty astute, actually believe there is any chance of such a thing happening? What we will get instead is double government coercion.  The government will continue to regulate the car companies, plus they will impose higher direct and indirect costs on businesses and consumers through higher gas taxes.  And the indirect costs of this tax will not be offset by any payroll reduction.

The economy is in bad shape, with no sign that it will get much better in the near future. Some even speculate that we could be headed for a depression or a multi-year recession.  The government is borrowing and spending like no tomorrow, and already massively interfering with the free market -- with little to show for it.  One of the few bright spots in the dismal economic picture has been low gas prices.  It's bad enough when the NYT advocates coercing people into conservation through the blunt instrument of high taxation.  The Times is a known supporter of big government solutions, and rarely sees a tax hike it doesn't like.  But I expect more from Krauthammer.

NYT: Let's Force Americans to Use Less Gas

The New York Times had an op-ed up on Dec. 26 called simply, The Gas Tax.  Now if you didn't know it was the NYT, you might think an article about the gas tax right now might examine ways to reduce it, as another means of stimulating the economy.  Oh no, the NYT thinks we should raise it.  One of their suggestions:

to devise a variable consumption tax in such a way that a gallon of unleaded gasoline at the pump would never go below a floor of $4 or $5

What a great idea.  Let's cripple the transportation industry and raise the cost of everything that relies upon it -- permanently.  They reluctantly admit that raising gas taxes might not be such a good idea right this minute.  But they are longing for the day when raising taxes can push gas back up over $4 a gallon.

The article operates from the standard left-wing central government planning premise that we can't allow the market to work -- even though the Times admits that gas prices will eventually rise on their own.  And since we can't allow the market to work, of course we can't possibly allow people to choose what types of vehicles we want to buy -- that would involve way too much personal freedom.   People are basically sheep that need to be guided by the government, and forced into doing the right thing -- as defined by the NYT.